Vehicle
The source paper reported different results when solvents and carriers changed.
Comedogenicity Checker for Pore-Clogging Ingredients
Use this comedogenicity checker to compare a complete skincare or cosmetic ingredient list with 161 source-linked historical records. It finds exact INCI-name matches and shows each reported comedogenicity rating, source location, and evidence limits. A match can help you investigate possible pore-clogging ingredients, but it cannot determine whether a finished product will clog your pores or cause acne. Your ingredient list is checked in your browser and is never uploaded or stored.
- No upload or account
- Exact names, no fuzzy guessing
- Sources and limits on every match
Check ingredient comedogenicity
Stays on this device0Parsed
0Source-listed
0Not in dataset
Not found in this source set
Unknown does not mean low concern. Check spelling, alternate INCI names, and other qualified sources.
0–1
Low historical signal
Not significant under those study conditions.
2–3
Borderline historical signal
The source itself treated this range as borderline.
4–5
Stronger historical signal
Reproducibly positive in that screening model.
161 reviewed records · 100% browser-side matching
Start with the term
What is comedogenicity?
Comedogenicity is commonly used as shorthand for pore-clogging potential, but the evidence is not a universal yes-or-no rule.
Comedogenicity describes the tendency of a substance or finished cosmetic formula to contribute to comedone formation—the blocked follicles commonly called clogged pores. A result can change with concentration, purity, vehicle, processing, exposure, the rest of the formula, and the person using it.
This checker therefore treats comedogenicity as a historical ingredient-level signal, not a product verdict. It compares names on a label with a reviewed source set, reports the rating and source location that were recorded, and keeps unmatched ingredients visible. It does not certify a product as non-comedogenic or predict an individual acne outcome.
The distinction matters because a raw material tested under controlled conditions is not the same thing as a modern cleanser, moisturizer, sunscreen, or makeup formula. The tool helps organize evidence and identify questions worth investigating; it cannot replace observation of the complete product or qualified clinical advice.
How to check ingredient comedogenicity
Start with the complete INCI list from the package or the brand’s current product page. The checker normalizes the label, compares each name with reviewed canonical names and aliases, and separates source-listed matches from ingredients outside the dataset. It does not infer comedogenicity from similar spelling or ingredient families.
- 01
Find the full INCI label
Use the package or the current ingredient list on the brand’s own product page. Marketing callouts such as “oil-free” or “non-comedogenic” do not provide the complete naming context needed for comparison.
- 02
Paste it as written
Commas, line breaks, semicolons, and bullets are accepted. Parsing and matching happen locally in your browser, so the label is not uploaded, stored, or added to the URL.
- 03
Read matches and unknowns
Review the reported rating, historical signal, alias match, and source locator for every result. Keep unknown entries visible instead of treating missing data as a low score.
What a comedogenicity rating means
The 0–5 comedogenicity rating shown here comes from Fulton’s 1989 rabbit-ear screening table. The model reported follicular keratinisation under controlled test conditions; it did not measure the probability that a current skincare product affects a particular person.
In that source, ratings of 0–1 were treated as not significant, 2–3 as borderline, and 4–5 as reproducibly positive. This site translates those bands into low, borderline, and stronger historical signals while preserving the original number and source location.
See the full method4–5
Stronger historical signal
Reproducibly positive in that screening model.
2–3
Borderline historical signal
The source itself treated this range as borderline.
0–1
Low historical signal
Not significant under those study conditions.
A comedogenicity rating is not a percentage. A 4 does not mean an 80% chance of clogged pores, and a 0 does not certify a finished product as non-comedogenic.
Why ingredient comedogenicity does not predict a finished product
Ingredient comedogenicity is only one input. A label gives names and approximate order—not exact percentages, delivery, purity, processing, or interactions.
The same raw material can behave differently when its concentration, source, refinement, solvent, or surrounding formula changes. Rinse-off and leave-on products also create different exposure patterns. Two products that share one ingredient can therefore produce very different practical experiences.
Individual response adds another layer of uncertainty. Skin condition, routine, climate, frequency of use, irritation, and other acne drivers remain outside an ingredient-name comparison. Use a checker result as a reason to inspect a formula, patch-test appropriately, and track repeatable personal experience—not as proof of a future outcome.
Concentration
A label usually does not expose the tested concentration or the finished formula’s exact amount.
Individual response
Skin type, routine, exposure, irritation, and other acne drivers remain outside a text match.
Coverage has boundaries
How the comedogenicity checker handles unknown ingredients
Missing evidence stays visible instead of being converted into a favorable score.
“Not found” means that the normalized ingredient name does not appear in this reviewed historical source set. It does not mean that the ingredient has low comedogenicity, is non-comedogenic, or is suitable for every skin type.
The name may be absent from the source, use a different INCI synonym, contain a spelling variation, or represent an ingredient introduced after the historical table was published. The checker matches only exact canonical names and reviewed aliases; it does not guess from fragments, chemical families, or similar-looking words.
When an entry is unknown, verify the label spelling, check the manufacturer’s current ingredient list, and consult additional qualified sources. Preserving uncertainty is more useful than presenting incomplete coverage as reassurance.
Explore pore-clogging ingredient evidence
Open a reviewed ingredient page to see the reported rating, source model, aliases, formulation context, and a proportionate practical takeaway.
Comedogenicity checker FAQ
Direct answers about ratings, pore-clogging evidence, dataset coverage, and what this browser-only checker can—and cannot—support.
What is comedogenicity?
Comedogenicity describes the tendency of a substance or formula to contribute to comedone formation. It is often discussed as pore-clogging potential, but it is not an absolute prediction for every product or person.
How accurate is a comedogenicity checker?
A checker can accurately report whether an ingredient name matches its reviewed dataset. It cannot determine the behavior of a complete formula because concentration, vehicle, processing, exposure, and individual response are usually unknown.
Does a high comedogenicity rating mean the product will clog my pores?
No. A high historical rating identifies a stronger result in the cited screening model. It does not prove that the finished product will clog pores or cause acne.
Does a rating of 0 mean non-comedogenic?
No. It means the source reported a low signal under its test conditions. It is not a certification or a universal product verdict.
What does “not found” mean?
The normalized name was not present in this reviewed dataset. Unknown does not mean low comedogenicity and does not establish product safety.
Do you upload or save my ingredient list?
No. Parsing and matching happen in your browser. The pasted text is not sent to an analysis server, stored locally, or added to the page URL.
Fulton, J. E. Jr. (1989)
Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 40, 321–333.